About your Search

20121226
20121226
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
the wall street journal, or the pentagon indicated they wanted to maintain 6000 to 15th thousand u.s. troops following 2014. that is the issue under discussion now. there's approximately around 340 0,000 afghan security forces in place, including the police. the pentagon recently indicated i don't believe there was a major unit capable of operating independently from nato support. there was some manipulation of the metrics they were using where the things appear to be making more progress than perhaps they were. that came out in a white paper. what will be the long term success or failure of the afghan national security forces is yet to be determined. they need about $4.1 billion a year to continue at that level, which is more than the entire government revenues in afghanistan. so it's gone to take a long-term commitment of foreign powers to maintain that size of armed forces. the afghans have proven that they are excellent fighters. the question is will they be excellent soldiers for the government of afghanistan? host: one other question, how stable do you think the karzai govern
a tough 2013. >> ifill: jacque simon, if i'm an employee of the pentagon or some place which there are tens of thousands of employees, is there any possibility that any deal that that come up with is going to disproportionately affect a department like that or does that happen across the board? >> well, everything as it is right now is determined by the -- a law that was passed in 2011, the budget control act. that's what set in motion this trigger for sequestration. in that law, roughly half was supposed to go to the department of defense and half in nondefense agencies. but given that, they will be -- that's one of the things that there's uncertainty among federal employees also, because we don't know yet how much discretion agencies will have and how they implement their cuts. and, again, a lot of focus is on sequestration, those automatic cuts. but that law also put in place spending caps that will affect cuts that are even larger than the sequestration cuts. so cuts are definitely coming. that's not even a question. >> ifill: it's not debatable. >> it's just how large th
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)